Bomber boys - bbc one

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Surely I don't have to literally repeat myself?

You yourself have used the phrase 'Let's not forget' in a singularly 'patronising' statement. Memorials are placed expressly for this purpose.

Exactly. So the message that one conveys should be: "Let's not forget that this man caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides", right?

What you think of the individual is quite up to you, but it is important to remember, don't you think? Children point and ask questions, also a good thing.

I agree, but there are different methods of remembering, I'm sure that kids can wait to get a bit older before they learn about the endeavours of Harris.
The darkest chapter of the RAF surely doesn't deserve a statue of his mastermind.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Exactly. So the message that one conveys should be: "Let's not forget that this man caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides", right?

The darkest chapter of the RAF surely doesn't deserve a statue of his mastermind.

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

But you don't mind statues of Churchill?

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

Ah, so what we Brits really need to do is tear down all statues of former political and military leaders, including statues of previous monarchs, such as Queen and Empress of India, Victoria and King Richard I (who was French after all), because they were all involved in some form of international nastiness with controversial motives?
Such that all immigrants from any nation or religious persuasion who wish to live in this 'wonderful country' won't be offended in any way?

Right on brother! Or as Orville might say, 'can I have a dash of chocolate in my latte please?'

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Ah, so what we Brits really need to do is tear down all statues of former political and military leaders, including statues of previous monarchs, such as Queen and Empress of India, Victoria and King Richard I (who was French after all), because they were all involved in some form of international nastiness with controversial motives?
Such that all immigrants from any nation or religious persuasion who wish to live in this 'wondeful country' won't be offended in any way?

Right on brother! Or as Orville might say, 'can I have a dash of chocolate in my latte please?'

..that's exactly what I mean, huge chip on the shoulder all the way

Have I said that? No.

And I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but you keep on blaming "immigrants", while I'd like to point out that even British citizen did not agree with the memorial on Harris and the statue was repeatedly vandalised. http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v08n3p15.htm

Stop derailing the whole thing to further blabber (more than what it is anyway) and answer my question: do you really think that Sir Arthur Harris deserves a statue for his achievements in WW2 as leader of Bomber Command?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..that's exactly what I mean, huge chip on the shoulder all the way

Have I said that? No.

And I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but you keep on blaming "immigrants", while I'd like to point out that even British citizen did not agree with the memorial on Harris and the statue was repeatedly vandalised. http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v08n3p15.htm

Stop derailing the whole thing to further blabber (more than what it is anyway) and answer my question: do you really think that Sir Arthur Harris deserves a statue for his achievements in WW2 as leader of Bomber Command?

You can try to 'rain' all you like, we Brits usually learn to carry brollies at an early age.

No I don't 'keep on blaming immigrants', in this one instance I've ever mentioned immigrants I'm referring to your own example.

Yes, I do consider Sir Arthur Harris to be deserving of a statue, as did and do the men formerly under his command.

And considering you weren't even aware of this statue's existence until you were told by PeterPanPan in this thread, your sudden wealth of knowledge regarding it's history and the controversy surrounding it is patently lacking in depth at best.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Apart for my personal judgement on Churchill's role in the whole affair (which again is not pretty clear, since the pressure for the "go" on the area bombing was coming from different fronts, he never was particularly fond of it, as it emerged in several private letters that came out), I normally think that one should avoid erecting statues of political leaders (let alone military ones!), especially if they were involved in controversial decisions.

Hmmm, 'Churchill's role in the whole affair which again is not pretty clear'.

He was the leader of The United Kingdom and The British Empire, and Head of the War Cabinet.

It was Churchill together with Charles Portal who overturned Chamberlain's instruction to avoid carrying out raids where civilian lives may be put at risk. It was Portal who originally recommended the deliberate targeting of cities.

It was Churchill who asked rhetorically in 1943 'Are we beasts?' but continued to endorse the area bombing policy and the overall Strategic Bombing campaign.

Harris was not some sort of piratical maverick doing everything behind his Prime Minister's back, or behind the backs of the War Cabinet, The Air Ministry, or behind the back of the Supreme Commander Allied Forces Europe or his deputy. I say yet again, Harris did nothing which was not sanctioned and approved by Churchill and the War Cabinet.

Churchill was leader of the British nation, the British People and all of it's armed forces. Is it clear yet?

[Sternjaeger II]

sorry lads, been down to the pub, and despite the 4 pints of Black Sheep I would like to say something..

@ Bongo: I'm sorry man, but I don't think I can keep on talking about this with you any longer. I keep on talking facts, you deliberately derail the conversation just because you think I'm an UK hater, whereas I'm just a fan of reality check.

I think Dutch's last post really embodies the spirit of some Britons that I was referring to "Yeah bombing civilians is a war crime and it's against the Geneva convention.. if they do it", which is a very dangerous one. The fact that he's ready to vouch for the perpetrator of a war crime doesn't make him any better than the Nazis, but as long as one feels that he's entitled to break the rules "because we're doing it for a good cause", then we won't have much of a progress (and Dutch, no I didn't know about Harris' statue, but I also know that common sense and good taste are often given for granted).

You said you don't care about the Harris' statue, well you should my friend, because it conveys the wrong message, which received harsh critiques from the mayors of the cities that were at the receiving end of Harris' policy.

Harris knew it wasn't effective (it didn't work against England after all), they knew it would have cost them a lot of lives and aircraft, they knew it would have caused a lot of disruption after the war, but they did it nonetheless, and the only explanations are retaliation, propaganda and politics (because the Russians pressed hard for it).
And just like in England, thousands of innocent children and women died, for no reason other than propaganda and a policy that was twice as wrong because it deliberately didn't want to learn from its own lesson.

If you're cool with all that, then yes, feel free to celebrate Butcher Harris.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

Harris' policy.

You really are just far too wilfully dense to grasp the fact that it wasn't.

'The Area Bombing Directive was a directive from the wartime British Government's Air Ministry to the Royal Air Force which ordered RAF bombers to attack the German industrial workforce and the morale of the German populace through bombing German cities and their civilian inhabitants.'

The 'Wartime British Government' was headed by Churchill. Do you get that bit yet?

Here's the link to your own favourite source (apart from the odd bonus dvd you have lying around).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Bombing_Directive

[Kongo-Otto]

I dont understand the whole discussion in this Thread.

Just a few thoughts by me:
1. If there are people who want to have a statue of Air Chief Marshal Harris, then why not.
Major point for a Harris memorial imho is the rememberence of the Men of Bomber Command, most of them ripped out of their daily lives and put into a bomber fighting a war they didnt had any responsibility for. Its a memorial for those who never came back and for those who survived. Also a point for a Harris Memorial is: make sure that such things never happen again, make sure that no one raises such power again to ignite the world regardless from where he is!
So if you ask me, build a Memorial for Harris and build a big one!
Thats it, as simple as that.

2. To my German Friend in this Thread.
There is a German saying "Wer austeilt muss auch einstecken können" which means "If you dish it out you have to be able to take it"

Nowadays many say "it was the Nazis who started the war" yes thats true, but the Germans fought it out. Sure there have been many in Germany who resisted the Nazis some of them did that at all cost. But there were not many enough. But all the others which said nothing and just stood by, have the same responsibility as the Nazis have for all the things that came!
If some Germans today are blaming Bomber Command for Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg they are surely blaming the wrong ones!
Again its as simple as that!